BlogU

  • Edifice Complex

    By Dean Dad December 16, 2008 9:49 pm

    Enough with the freakin' buildings, already.

    Apparently, the American Council on Education (along with some other groups) is wasting no time in getting in line for bailout/stimulus money, petitioning the Obama administration-in-waiting to set aside a significant chunk of change for construction projects at colleges and universities across the country. The idea is that construction projects create jobs, and that once the buildings are finished, colleges and universities will be better able to provide students with exposure to and experience in the latest technologies. Oh, and the buildings will be suitably green, and 'shovel-ready' within 180 days.

    Well, that's all fine and good. I have to give the ACE credit for being shovel-ready, based on this plan. But there's a much easier, faster, more effective way to shore up and improve higher ed in America. It's suitably green, the economic effects would be both quick and lasting, and it would have a direct, positive impact on students.

    Don't spend it on more buildings. Spend it on people to work in the buildings we already have.

    The faculty is an obvious place to start. Salaries come out of operating budgets, and the states' support of operating budgets has been falling faster lately than at any time in the last three decades, and that's saying something. Nationally, the aggregate response to that has been to shrink the ranks of full-time faculty and to replace them with part-timers. National studies have shown consistently that too heavy a reliance on adjuncts has negative effects on student success; at this point, that debate is pretty well settled. We're wasting an entire generation of scholars through hiring freezes, then doing a measurably worse job of educating a generation of students because of it. Given the money, we could start hiring full-time people at the drop of a hat.

    Of course, faculty aren't the only ones needed. Labs and libraries don't maintain themselves. IT networks require constant attention. Campus security can't be left to volunteers. And don't even get me started on financial aid offices...

    Unlike construction projects, which actually take years to move from concept to completion, we could ramp up our staffing on short notice. (Hell, at this point, just preventing layoffs would require a substantial infusion of cash.) For those who haven't had the pleasure, a quick overview of the various phases of a construction project:

    • "Visioning." Allow several months for input, internal politicking, deal-making, and arguing over what, exactly, should be built. Build in costs for ADA, LEED, etc.
    • Environmental impact studies. "You can't build there – that's a mating ground for the rare three-toed hornswaggler. And you can't build there – the local residents are organized and pissy. And you can't build there, because there would be no place to park. And what's taking you so long, anyway?"
    • Permitting. 'Nuff said.
    • Political deal-making. Luckily, there's no corruption in the construction industry.
    • Bidding, appeals, re-bidding. Since everything has to be built by the lowest bidder, the game is to make the specs ridiculously specific. Otherwise, some really inconvenient corners will get cut. (See "Big Dig, The") This takes TIME.
    • Actual building time.
    • Lawsuits over cost overruns. These occur with the regularity of the sun rising in the East.
    • Delays as various developers go broke. For reasons I still don't understand, the average construction firm has the lifespan of a fruit fly.
    • Unanticipated last-minute fixes.

    If you think that can all get done in 180 days, you've been huffing the pungent musk of the three-toed hornswaggler. Can't. Be. Done.

    On the other hand, give me a green light to beef up the English department and the library staff, and I'll have folks ensconced in their positions faster than you can say 'environmental impact study.' And those people will spend their paychecks, stimulating the economy just as well as anybody else. Better, those folks will actually improve the quality of education for our students, so there's a real long-term payoff to complement the real short-term payoff. We can get to the buildings when we get to them.

    Yes, there's a legitimate fear that Federal money would simply displace state money, but that's relatively easy to prevent. Just do what you do for highway funding, and require the states to match a certain portion. If you really want to get creative, require state-level set-asides. It takes a little doing, but it's far easier than managing thousands of construction projects across the country.

    In fact, there's a very intelligent case to be made that rather than lining up as simply another industry begging for a handout, higher ed should partner with k-12 and law enforcement and petition the Feds to bail out the states. State budget shortfalls will lead to layoffs, which are the worst possible moves in a downturn like this. Keep people on payroll -- whether they're college professors, elementary school teachers, cops, or anything else -- and they'll keep spending. Cut them loose, and they'll cut spending. Buildings can wait.

    The alternative is to continue to grow buildings while shrinking the faculty and staff. To my mind, that plan is truly shovel-ready.

Advertisement

Comments on Edifice Complex

  • Did you write Obama?
  • Posted by E-ticket-lizabeth , Doc student on December 17, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • So, DD, have you put your 2 cents' worth in to the Obama people? Your comments make a huge amount of sense, but if you're only blogging about them, how will the Obama folks know? I think they're a pretty savvy group, but if the only people making any noise are the ones pushing for construction projects, let's face it, they won't fund salaries.

    By the way, I filed for unemployment the other day and the clerk on the other end of the phone was bemoaning construction projects! Seems she had just been talking to a nurse who had worked at the same hospital for 14 years but had been laid off when money got tight for the new "contracted" construction project. Put that in the Obama camp's think tank! We need more good people in regular (ie NOT grant-funded or temp) positions so they feel comfortable spending a bit more and helping the economy from the ground up. We do NOT need more temp workers, including those with construction projects that are over in a few years, who need to save, save, save in case they don't get a new job when this one is over.

  • Common Sense
  • Posted by Ken on December 17, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • Your scenario makes perfect sense to me. I always resented being told there was no money for faculty while buildings continually sprouted across the campus. And, of course, the excuse was that those funds came from another budget.

    It would be nice if decision makers would read your argument. Me thinks, though, that the construction industry lobbyists have already convinced the powers that be to go there way.

  • Just one issue...
  • Posted by Canadian Commentor on December 17, 2008 at 4:00pm EST
  • Great comment in principle, the only problem with the argument is that creating permanent ongoing positions implies a long-term funding commitment. Bail-outs are inherently short-term, which is why construction projects are so attractive.

    In Canada, for different reasons, we have a Canada Research Chairs program that has been a fairly successful way for our federal government to provide direct support to targeted areas of the post-secondary sector without overstepping the mandate of the provinces to run the education sector.

  • Bailout
  • Posted by Faculty Person on December 17, 2008 at 4:20pm EST
  • I have to agree with Canadian Commenter that faculty generally are long term commitments while bailouts are short term. A short term increase in the salary budget to accommodate increased enrollments might feed growing adjunct populations.

    The government could make relatively short term commitments to increase scholarship funds for students and allow more of the unemployed/underemployed to attend college.

    The government could also make targeted grants for necessary building and renovation. Refurbishing some older facilities could be very helpful to some schools, especially at the community college, four year level.

  • re:
  • Posted by PS on December 17, 2008 at 4:55pm EST
  • I agree with a lot of the elements of the article, but it misses a crucial element. More people creates more space. Now, you can always be creative and cram more people in, although the constant complaining and whining from the faculty and staff would be intolerable. If people are willing to *not complain* (particularly to their Boards) and work in smaller spaces, then go forward with the plan described in this article. But, as we all know, that is extremely unlikely - it is much easier to complain than it is to change. And be kind.

  • Posted by Unemployed Academic , Building for Faculty on December 18, 2008 at 5:40am EST
  • Great sentiments and values, Dean Dad!

    Since some people have pointed out that this one-time bailout might be precarious, why not advocate building solar and wind power plants for universities across the land? In business-speak, this leverages synergies to cut greenhouse gases, provide free energy to institutions and free up money in the operating budget for faculty.

  • But will they listen?
  • Posted by Mindful on December 18, 2008 at 5:50am EST
  • I agree with all of the points made, except for one.

    I have serious doubts as to whether the Obama administration is going to do what needs to be done in this area.